next »

[profh]

I guess this belongs here . .  . was reading the paper this AM and came across this. Kinda shocked.  Thoughts?

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2009/04/oberlin_college_breaks_50000ay.html

I used the federal loan repayment calculator and if you pay all out of pocket it comes to about 2300 a month for 10 years.  Kids are going to be paying that to the grave.

I just wonder how many students get funding?  How many actually fork out $200k for a BA?

They're charging more than Harvard! PDF chart on page  has details.

[carebearstare]

Lots of private universities charge more than $50K a year, too--there are many, many schools left off that list. And lots of students pay for it, either because their parents are rich or because they take out a lot of loans. I'm not particularly shocked by this article in any way.

If we want to have a general conversation about the cost of higher education, fine, but I see no reason to single any of these particular schools out.

For at least some of the students who attend schools like this, the high price tag is worth it.

[profh]

There is never a reason for someone to pay $200k for a 4-year degree from any college.

How many students go to colleges like this and pay out-of-pocket and then suffer in debt for years to come?

True, it's their decision to go.  Although, it seems to take advantage of the motto that's been ingrained into the American psyche:  Go to a great college, sure it's expensive, get a great job, live the American dream. 

Sadly, it doesn't happen like that.  I know more successful people from state colleges than private, and they are not living in debt.

I have a very difficult time believing that a BA from Oberlin or any school charging a ridiculous tuition rate is worth the money.

For the majority of students, their best bet is 2 years of gen. ed. at the CC followed by 2 years at the state college - unless their rich, have funding, or don't know any better.

[chomp96]

The "sticker price" doesn't mean much, because so few people pay that whole amount.  At my midwestern SLAC (where the total price tag is over $40K annually) over 95% of our students receive some financial aid.

The "discount rate" (average percentage below the stated amount that students pay) is just as important as the sticker price.  At many such places, the discount rate is up around 50% (or higher).

[bigsky]

Wow, a Professor there must make a TON of money!

[carebearstare]

You should talk to alumni of schools that cost this much before you make blanket statements about what is or isn't worth the money.

There are plenty of things that people spend their money on that I would have trouble justifying spending my own on.

Our society has an infatuation with debt that needs to be reined in, for all kinds of good reasons. Tuition is more expensive than many people can afford at many places. But you seem to be questioning value, rather than cost. Value is social and subjective.

I know many, many people who attended expensive liberal arts colleges and cherish those experiences. They are successful and happy. Some have debt, some don't. Some went in with wealthy parents, some didn't. The value they got out of it is worth the cost, to them. If it's not worth it to you, don't send your kids there.

[systeme_d_]

You should talk to alumni of schools that cost this much before you make blanket statements about what is or isn't worth the money.

There are plenty of things that people spend their money on that I would have trouble justifying spending my own on.

Our society has an infatuation with debt that needs to be reined in, for all kinds of good reasons. Tuition is more expensive than many people can afford at many places. But you seem to be questioning value, rather than cost. Value is social and subjective.

I know many, many people who attended expensive liberal arts colleges and cherish those experiences. They are successful and happy. Some have debt, some don't. Some went in with wealthy parents, some didn't. The value they got out of it is worth the cost, to them. If it's not worth it to you, don't send your kids there.

Chime on all counts. 

[jwormold]

I applied to Oberlin when I was looking for colleges: I got less than half the amount in financial aid from them than from the school (elite East Coast SLAC) I ended up attending, which ended up being much less expensive than going to a state school. Even Sarah Lawrence, which was also one of the most expensive school back in the early 90s, offered significantly more money. 

I hope they've improved their aid packages and their commitment to having an economically diverse campus...

[dellaroux]

The comment by mdg1 a few posts down is most instructive.

The tendency to demonize (and often falsely) any culturally-aware activity or institution in the area is one thing I don't miss about being from Columbus originally.

But the ranting in the comments is stronger and sharper than it was when I was being raised. There used to be a more even interchange among people of various viewpoints about such things, and less hard-edged attitudinal positioning.

I'll have to ask my folks next time I talk to them, just to see what their take is on it...could be interesting...

[profh]

I'm out on this.  I don't think that I have anything positive to say.  In terms of the common citizen, I think SLACs offer little value, little purpose.

In terms of it being a college in a highly depressed area, it does little for most.

[spork]

The sorry fact is that institutions of higher education have created their own Frankenstein monster.  By marketing themselves as places where young people can spend a happy, entertaining, and effort-free four years, universities have had to live up to their advertising to remain competitive.  So we have Student Life, Residence Life, Student Programming, Student Activities, Athletics, the wireless campus, multimillion dollar "student centers," etc.  All of this costs money and is not a direct contributor to learning.

[daniel_von_flanagan]

For the majority of students, their best bet is 2 years of gen. ed. at the CC followed by 2 years at the state college

Based on completion rate data, this is wrong.  Students get invested in their major earlier, and complete sooner, if they can start at their degree campus.

Two year programs are a great option for many students, but they are a second option to doing all four years at a single institution. - DvF

[glowdart]

I applied to Oberlin when I was looking for colleges: I got less than half the amount in financial aid from them than from the school (elite East Coast SLAC) I ended up attending, which ended up being much less expensive than going to a state school. Even Sarah Lawrence, which was also one of the most expensive school back in the early 90s, offered significantly more money. 

I hope they've improved their aid packages and their commitment to having an economically diverse campus...

Me, too, actually.  Different schools, but same less than impressive aid package from Oberlin, same cheap final cost of attendance at another elite slac, which was a quarter of the state school tuition AND less than the local community college.

[hyperbole]

As with similar elite SLACS, a great irony pervades the campus culture as many students zealously embrace radical, anti-capitalist, anti-wealth opinions and lifestyles, bought and paid for, no doubt.

[tuxedo_cat]

The "sticker price" doesn't mean much, because so few people pay that whole amount.  At my midwestern SLAC (where the total price tag is over $40K annually) over 95% of our students receive some financial aid.

The "discount rate" (average percentage below the stated amount that students pay) is just as important as the sticker price.  At many such places, the discount rate is up around 50% (or higher).

This is the most important comment on this thread; this "sticker price" issue is, so far as I can tell, a major untold story about higher ed at private institutions.  I've taught at two different private institutions (one east coast SLAC) where this was the tuition paradigm.  There were moments when I wondered if _anyone_ was paying full tuition at the little college where I was teaching. 

In some ways it's an ingenious if somewhat counter-intuitive marketing strategy.  Just think: if you're a parent looking with severe trepidation at a $45K+ tuition bill and the financial aid office says, "Your overachieving snowflake deserves a $15K scholarship to attend our institution.  Congratulations!" -- you breathe a sigh of relief, pat your kid proudly on the back, and don't even notice that you're still forking over an outrageous amount of tuition, even with the "scholarship."  It's like buying a $300 pair of shoes on sale for. . . .$150!!  Damn, I got such a great deal!  Tuition has become a byzantine shell game.

However, I confess that I secretly enjoy the fact that this is essentially also a silent "redistribution of wealth" mechanism:  every time a slacker kid with a lousy gpa a filthy rich parents gets admitted to one of these institutions and has to cough up full tuition because they can't get in anywhere else, this means that an academically deserving kid with not-so-filthy-rich parents can attend that same school for much less tuition.  Some of this pattern is shifting because of the economic crisis -- see recent NYT articles about how some parents are deliberately _not_ applying for financial aid, calculating -- correctly -- that this may improve their child's chances of admission.